Cookham Discussion Board
July 20, 2018, 06:56:53 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
22 July 2018 - Colonel Garrett Cup Cricket Competition

24 July 2018 - Cookham Medical Centre Closed for Training - 12.30-6.30pm

27 July 2018 - National Trust Bat Walk

28 July 2018 - Live@the Church

TO REGISTER TO POST ON THIS DISCUSSION BOARD email the Webmaster@cookham.com with a User name you would like. This is due to spammers.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11]
  Print  
Author Topic: I was shocked to learn...  (Read 104337 times)
Kiki1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 304


« Reply #150 on: May 16, 2010, 02:30:51 AM »

Hold onto your hats, it's started.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Gay-couple-set-to-sue.6297005.jp

Logged
Mumofone
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 86


« Reply #151 on: May 17, 2010, 07:00:48 AM »

Taking this thread onto a slightly different tangent (if that's OK), a couple of weeks ago there was a programme called Three in a Bed, about different B and B owners in competition with eachother. Well, one of the owners had a B and B exclusively for gay clients.

Given the lambasting of the Wilkinsons, I wonder at the legality of discriminating against heterosexual clients. What do readers here think? To me, it seems that discrimination is highly selective, you can have gay pubs and clubs for example, but not heterosexual ones. Not that I mind, I think people should leave eachother be, whatever their orientation, I hate bullying of any kind. Which is why I think the Wilkinsons have had enough "punishment" already. Suing them is in my opinion a form of extreme bullying. They could easily get a written notice outlining the law, and if they choose to ignore it and do the same again, well then maybe take further legal action, but they are now being bullied in a way that is very cruel, regardless of the original matter.

The victim has now turned tormentor and the Wilkinsons are now the victims of discrimination. It's all got way out of hand and is very childish IMO. It just fuels the problem and does nothing towards people having peaceful co-existence.
Logged
Tendereyes
Newbie
*
Posts: 16


« Reply #152 on: May 17, 2010, 11:33:03 AM »

I watch Three in a Bed and I think you'll find that the bed and breakfast in Bournemouth - Hamilton Hall - go to great lengths explaining on their website, the reasons why they are a "men only" retreat for gay and bisexual men. They also state that they are non-profit making business. I'm not sure how they manage to avoid all the laws/rules but perhaps by the disclaimer on their site this is how you do it.
Does anyone know?
« Last Edit: May 17, 2010, 11:45:13 AM by Tendereyes » Logged
Roger
Full Member
***
Posts: 198


« Reply #153 on: May 17, 2010, 12:54:50 PM »

Perhaps under civil law someone could complain, but as Hamilton House make it very obvious for whom they cater, no one has bothered to take them to court, as it would be at their own expense.
Logged
Mumofone
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 86


« Reply #154 on: May 17, 2010, 04:09:21 PM »

I hear what you say, but surely the whole matter is about the illegality of discriminating against someone on grounds of sexuality. Had the Wilkinsons stated on their website that they were ardent Christians and therefore certain sections of society fall foul of their beliefs then the situation would still be that they are discriminating illegally.

I just want to flag up that the Wilkinsons have been subjected to a hideous campaign in the media, and the men turned away are CHOOSING to punish this couple still further by pursuing a legal action, causing more long term damage to the Wilkinsons than they experienced by this event.

Although the Wilkinsons acted wrongly in my opinion, what has been demonstrated towards them is far more ugly and I have heard much hypocracy in this case. I think it is clearly a case of double standards.
Logged
Showem
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 365


« Reply #155 on: May 19, 2010, 09:00:41 AM »

Mumofone, the gay B&B you mention has a statement on their website about their men only policy. They quote S.46 SDA,
Quote
Discrimination by non profit making voluntary bodies in restricting their membership to one sex or providing benefits to one sex only in accordance with their main object. Discrimination in the provision of facilities or services to avoid serious embarrassment to users which would be caused by the presence of members of the opposite sex. Communal accommodation - residential accommodation which includes dormitories or other shared sleeping accommodation, can be restricted to one sex only for reasons of privacy and decency or because of the nature of the sanitary facilities available.

and claim they are non-profit, which would fulfil this requirement.(see http://www2.hamiltonhall.info/contact/frequently-asked-questions.html if you want to read it all yourself) Somewhat different than a B&B that is supposedly open to all.

I'm not sure about this "hideous campaign" by the media against the Wilkinsons. Can you provide us with any examples? Everything I've read has simply stated the facts.
Logged
NeonPants
Newbie
*
Posts: 8


« Reply #156 on: May 20, 2010, 03:56:14 AM »

There is nothing I can say on this matter that won't get me flamed to Cockmarsh and back by the good people of Cookham. 

Can we please get back to the serious business of CCTV cameras for Alfred Major, Cookham get cooking, school places, WI cake sales, the Fabulous Shirtlifters Clivedon scandal, the next book sale at Pinder Hall, Let's see how much history we can dig up?, and the usual complaints about air traffic, travelers, late night parties, litter, dog mess, parking, car break-in's, doorstep distraction robbers, the rudeness of the staff at Malik's, yobs, and making fun of James Hatch?
Logged
Kiki1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 304


« Reply #157 on: May 21, 2010, 12:06:27 PM »


I'm not sure about this "hideous campaign" by the media against the Wilkinsons. Can you provide us with any examples? Everything I've read has simply stated the facts.

About a month ago there were various low quality chat-sites (Buzz , Facebook etc) where many entries ranged from 'put the B+B out of business by booking rooms online and cancel on the night', to 'burn her house down, that'll teach her'. I believe the B+B website was also a target of hacking plus the abuse.

The wonderful thing about the Internet is that threads can be moderated (albeit somewhat later) so that the abusive and threatening posts can be censored and in many cases removed.

Logged
Kiki1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 304


« Reply #158 on: May 21, 2010, 12:08:06 PM »

There is nothing I can say on this matter that won't get me flamed to Cockmarsh and back by the good people of Cookham. 

Can we please get back to the serious business of CCTV cameras for Alfred Major, Cookham get cooking, school places, WI cake sales, the Fabulous Shirtlifters Clivedon scandal, the next book sale at Pinder Hall, Let's see how much history we can dig up?, and the usual complaints about air traffic, travelers, late night parties, litter, dog mess, parking, car break-in's, doorstep distraction robbers, the rudeness of the staff at Malik's, yobs, and making fun of James Hatch?

They are on different threads, and this is an ongoing situation with a Cookham resident, so why ?
Logged
michaelw
Newbie
*
Posts: 2


« Reply #159 on: October 10, 2010, 10:31:28 PM »

This case may soon be going to court, under the auspices of Liberty, and a good thing too.  Forget bankrupting the miserable owners, let alone using violence.  Let's establish that their stance is illegal, and then they can decide how they wish to run their business, if they still do.

There was an interesting quote from the joint proprietor, Mike Wilkinson, in the "Bucks Free Press" dated 22nd March: "We have a faith, we live according to that our faith is a Christian lifestyle.  We have values that are important to us and we feel we're responsible for and it makes it impossible for us to condone behaviour we don't agree with.  We're sorry they've been upset and we're upset.  It's a clash of two different points of view.  We're very sad that the state of the country is that such laws exist at all.  We would say actually we obey other laws, we obey God's laws.  We're not discriminating on race, religion or any other reason and we want to make it really clear we're not homophobic."

To repeat his crucial point, if he was accurately quoted, he said: "We're very sad ... that such laws exist at all ... we obey other laws, we obey God's laws".  That is an observation which could have been made by certain kinds of religious extremists, and is in total defiance of the democracy to which nearly all of us, I hope, subscribe.  I'm relieved to see from this correspondence that he does not have the support of the local clergy.
Logged
michaelw
Newbie
*
Posts: 2


« Reply #160 on: October 10, 2010, 11:27:36 PM »

Sorry, just to add to the above, and also to comment on earlier posts, local council taxpayers aren't being asked to pay for the legal action.  It will be funded by Liberty as a test case, even if it goes to appeal.  But if the Wilkinsons lose, as seems likely, they will be liable for costs.  Surely they will wish to come to an accommodation rather than to be busted?  Or is this to come to a high profile dispute funded by religious extremists?

In passing, around 35 years ago I knew the then managing director of the quite recently founded Mothercare business.  He received a letter from a customer complaining that she had been served by a person of colour.  He replied, politely as always, saying that if she objected she should take her business elsewhere.

Nuff said?
Logged
Kate
Administrator
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56


« Reply #161 on: October 12, 2010, 01:00:24 PM »

Michael I'm slightly confused by your posting.

I absolutely agree this is an important test case to remove any ambiguity around this legislation, and I'm glad to see Liberty taking it forward as such. However, if the aim of the action is to redefine the legislation then what is the purpose of threatening the Wilkinsons with costs? Surely this will drive them to settle before the case reaches court in which case no precedent is set and the opportunity to test the legislation is lost (thus your comment: Surely they will wish to come to an accommodation rather than to be busted?).

I would respectfully suggest that if this is truly a test case then it should be established on a level playing field and driven to its fullest conclusion in order to clarify the law and discourage such disputes in the future. If on the other hand it is merely an endless pursuit of the Wilkinsons into bankruptcy then your tactics make perfect sense.

My personal view? I happen to think the Wilkinsons were sadly misguided in this instance, but until the legislation is tested to its fullest extent it remains just that, my personal view.
Logged
Mumofone
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 86


« Reply #162 on: October 12, 2010, 06:08:55 PM »

I agree the law should be crystal clear so in the future people who run a B and B cannot repeat this incident.

However, going after the Wilkinsons for money/costs on top of the public humiliation, media attention etc seems rather malicious IMHO. Where will it end? When they have to sell their home or have a nervous breakdown or something? Then it would be no victory at all, just a sad case ofn two wrongs not making a right.
Logged
Kiki1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 304


« Reply #163 on: December 17, 2010, 07:00:22 PM »

Surely they will wish to come to an accommodation rather than to be busted?  Or is this to come to a high profile dispute funded by religious extremists?

In the spirit of the season, and if I recall the story correctly, Mary and Joseph were refused accomodation a few times before accepting the refuge of a stable. Nothing extremist or religious about their circumstance at all, and there's nothing in the book about taking the other B+B's through any legal mangle with their mentor funding the process.

In passing, around 35 years ago I knew the .....snip..... politely as always, saying that if she objected she should take her business elsewhere.

Neither side is likely to use that in the case, which from the other thread is unlikley to go ahead.
(besides the Wilkinson's used something similar first time round)

http://www.cookham.com/forum/index.php?topic=1502.0


Nuff said?

More than enough, thank you.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2010, 07:03:07 PM by Kiki1 » Logged
Gira
Newbie
*
Posts: 1


« Reply #164 on: February 22, 2011, 06:18:24 PM »

I just wanted to offer my support to the two people turned away, and they should definatly get a nice settlement out of it. I don't think it matters if you beleive homosexuality is a sin or not--you don't get to discriminated based on who committed sin sinse no one can agree on what they entail.
Logged

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!